Relationship between protein intake and bone architecture or bone mineral density among dynapenic-obese older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The current study aimed to assess the relationship between protein intake and bone parameters among dynapenic-obese older adults. DESIGN: The current study is a secondary analysis with an a posteriori and exploratory design. SETTING: Subjects were recruited from the community via social communication (flyers and meetings in community centres) in the Great Montreal area. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-six subjects were divided a posteriori into two groups according to their usual protein intake: PROT-: < 1 g/kg per d (n 13; women: 53·8 %; 66·5 (sd 3·3) years) and PROT+: > 1·2 g/kg per d (n 13; women: 61·5 %; 67·2 (sd 2·7) years). RESULTS: Both groups were comparable for age (PROT-: 66·5 (sd 3·3) v. PROT+: 67·2 (sd 2·7) years, P = 0·61) and gender (women: PROT-: n 7; 53·8 % v. PROT+: n 8; 61·5 %, P = 0·69). The PROT- group had a higher marrow area (P = 0·049), a greater bone compressive strength (P = 0·048) and a larger total bone area (P = 0·045) than the PROT+ group. However, no significant difference between the two groups was observed regarding body composition (fat and lean masses) or muscle composition. CONCLUSIONS: A lower protein intake seems to be associated with bone sizes, which influence bone strength, but do not influence bone density among dynapenic-obese older people.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".